High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in school

Question

High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

Which one of the following, if true about the last year, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.

(B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.

(C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.

(D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.

(E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.

sayantanc2k · Accepted Answer

Premise: a new program was implemented two years ago. (X)
Conclusion: drop out rates reduced. (Y)
The argument is X caused Y.

Option A weakens the argument by stating that something else, recession (Z) caused Y, thereby weakening the argument X caused Y.

Option D may present a reason that the drop out rate is reduced , but it attacks the conclusion (Y) in isolation and has no bearing with the premise (X) - it does not attack the link between the premise and conclusion (i.e does not attack the argument X caused Y) and thus is not the right answer.

OA added.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument concludes that a program instituted two years ago to increase morale has ultimately caused the recent decrease in high school dropouts. You must always recognize a causal conclusion when one is presented to you! Whenever you encounter a causal conclusion, ask yourself if the relationship must be as stated by the author or if another explanation can be found. In simplified form, the conclusion appears as follows: P = program to raise high school morale, RD = reduction in dropouts, PRD. Regardless of the question asked, this assessment is helpful. The question stem asks you to weaken the argument, and according to the “How to Attack a Causal Conclusion” section there are five main avenues of attack you should be prepared to encounter. The correct answer, (A), falls into one of the most frequently occurring of those categories: the alternate cause.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer.  The answer attacks the conclusion by introducing an alternate cause: it was not the morale program that led to a decrease in high dropouts, but rather the fact that no jobs were available for individuals contemplating dropping out of high school. The job availability factor is important because the first sentence of the stimulus indicates that high school students who drop out go to work. Thus, if a recession led to a high level of unemployment, this could cause high school students to rethink dropping out and stay in school.

Answer choice (B): At best, this answer confirms that some of the high school students had a low morale, and in that sense, the answer strengthens the argument. At worst, the answer choice is irrelevant.

Answer choice (C): The argument indicates that the dropout rate is lower relative to the preceding year; there is no claim that the dropout rate ever exceeded the retention rate. Thus, to suggest that more students stayed in school than dropped out has no effect on the argument.

Answer choice (D): This is a Shell Game answer. The stimulus refers to high school dropouts. This answer choice refers to high school graduates.

Answer choice (E): The argument uses information about the city’s overall dropout rate. Therefore, the target high schools of the anti-dropout program are irrelevant.

aditya8062 · Answer

A it is :   There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city ----------->to weaken the conclusion just provide the alternate reason. this is exactly what A does

earnit · Answer

Given that Option A implies: Unemployment rises -> Cant afford child education -> hence child drops out of school.

But are we not assuming too much, out of scope of the passage that unemployment leads to crisis at home and inability to support child education??

The correct weakener should provide an alternate reason that shows that it was NOT the antidropout program but some other factor that lead to a fall in drop-out.

IMO Option E implies that though the program was Primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates, the overall number for all schools that year was reduced which could be due to some other factor where the program was not really aimed at.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

(A) There was a recession that caused a high level or unemployment in the city. 
 The answer choice provides an alternate reason for the chnage and thus weakens the argument by stating that the program was not the reason for the low dropout rates.

(B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school. 
 the answer choice tries to undermine the effects of the program but as the argument specifies that students drop out of high school and the program aims to boost the moral of the highschool students the choice is addressing the wrong segment of studnets thus out of scope.

(C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out. 
 this does not mean that the students remained in the high school because of the program

(D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment. 
 The point states that the high school established placement offices but fails to mention the quality of jobs provided and weather the jobs provided by the palcement offices were the same jobs as the droppouts were doing already or were better paid and therfore this anser choice may not be correct completely and therfore does not form the code for the weakiening of the argument.

(E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving studentsâ€™ morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.
 the answer choice does not weakens the argument but only provide more stats.

Skywalker18 · Answer

The argument concludes that a program instituted two years ago to increase morale has ultimately caused the recent decrease in high school dropouts.

correct answer, (A), falls into one of the most frequently occurring of those categories: the alternate cause. 
(A): This is the correct answer. The answer attacks the conclusion by introducing an alternate cause: it was not the morale program that led to a decrease in high dropouts, but rather the fact that no jobs were available for individuals contemplating dropping out of high school. The job availability factor is important because the first sentence of the stimulus indicates that high school students who drop out go to work. Thus, if a recession led to a high level of unemployment, this could cause high school students to rethink
dropping out and stay in school
(B): At best, this answer confirms that some of the high school students had a low morale, and in that sense, the answer strengthens the argument. At worst, the answer choice is irrelevant. 
(C): The argument indicates that the dropout rate is lower relative to the preceding year; there is no claim that the dropout rate
ever exceeded the retention rate. Thus, to suggest that more students stayed in school than dropped out has no effect on the argument. 
(D): iSWAT - The stimulus refers to high school dropouts. This answer choice refers to high school graduates. 
(E): The argument uses information about the city’s overall dropout rate. Therefore, the target high schools of the anti-dropout program are irrelevant.

Alexey1989x · Answer

This one is cause & effect.
New program (x) encouraged students not to give up school and seek for a job, but to stay and graduate that led to a decrease in dropout rate (y).
Our goal is to find another reason for (y) to happen, answer "A" gives a clear reason (y) to happen due to a high unemployment rate in the city, thus students simply couldn't find a job and had no any other options but to stay at school and proceed with studying.
Very decent question.

guptarahul · Answer

As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out. 
why C is wrong??

GMATNinja · Answer

Choice (C) only tells us that,  in each year , more high school students remained than dropped out, but it doesn't tell us if the number of dropouts increased, decreased, or remained the same  from one year to the next . For example, perhaps 4000 students remained and 1000 dropped out last year (consistent with the information given in choice (C)). If 1500 students dropped out and 2500 remained the preceding year, this evidence would support the argument that the program is reducing dropouts. Since we don't know the exact numbers, we don't know whether choice (C) weakens or strengthens the argument.

Kritisood · Answer

In a weaken question always try to find an alternative to what the question is stating. A does so by giving an alternate reason as to why the dropouts might have been low. 
why D is wrong is cus it's open to interpretation in many ways. Did they establish the placement office this year? last year? the year before? were the placement offices that were established a part of the program being discussed in the argument?
the answer to these questions would change the interpretation and hence the alternate reasoning.

harshbirsingh · Answer

Hi  BrentGMATPrepNow ,

Could you please explain why option D is incorrect? With placement office in place, students might get access to better jobs and hence, less dropouts. Thus, weakening the argument?

Is it something to do with the use of graduates and not students?

Thanks!

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

I typically don't comment on unofficial GMAT Verbal questions. 
I actually think D is a decent answer choice.

As for answer choice A (There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city.), I can see how a recession might cause students to stay in school (and reduce the dropout rate), but I can also see how a recession could caused many students to leave school prematurely (to find jobs to help their newly-unemployed parents pay the bills).

Alilee · Answer

Goal: This is a cause and effect Q, look for weaken 
Argument: Program that started 2 yrs ago increased moral -> so lowered dropout rate (ie. program -> higher moral -> lower dropout rate) 
 
(A) There was a recession that caused a high level or unemployment in the city.
  Reccesion caused low dropout rate. <- weakens the argument by offering another cause to the effect

(B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school.

(C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out.

(D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employment.  
No info on weather the employment from this placement office is going to be better than the jobs dropouts could have or if dropouts need the assist. it's a far stretch trying to say potential dropout's hope on this program cuased lower dropout rate.  
(E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving studentsâ€TM morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates.

vasu1104 · Answer

high school drops out early and go to work.
last year drop out rate was lower then year before that.
the program instituted 2 years ago to improve morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.

so author is saying there are no other reason for reducrtion in drop out. so we can find alternative reason, we can weaken it.
may be the job market is so bad that means effective way to get the job is to have graduate certi. or companies are hiring more of graduates students.

A
B this has no impact whatsoever.
C this is completely irrelevant.
D but its for graduates students. and for that they need to stick around and we are discussing exactly that on why drop out rates dropped. so this doesnt harm at all.
E out of scope.

Adit_ · Answer

Bunuel  Kindly help change the typos, too many of them. First one being the weird looking symbols in the first two lines and second being the OA itself that says "high level or employment". It kind of threw me off at first and then realised.

High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in school

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

High school students who feel that they are not succeeding in school

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards